DOMA struck down

[jcoosi]

Supreme Court just released ruling 5 to 4 that DOMA is unconstitutional.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/in-supreme-court-gay-marriage-decision-justices-reach-for-equality-20130626

[Smith]

I find it telling that the quotes from the Majority are feeling and "I think/feel" statements, where the minority are statements based on law and precedent. Interesting. :shake:

[Mike.357]

it is a good start.

[TripleDigitRide]

it is a good start.

Yes.

[RobertNashville]

I was not surprised.  When it comes to the federal government, showing favortism (actually "punnishing" same-sex couples which is what DOMA was really about) is simply not going to pass Constitutional muster.

 

I think Scalia (sp?) is a very strict Constitutionalist and I think that is precisely why he came down the way he did on this issue.

 

Now...if we can just get the federal governmetn completely out of the marriage business we will have accomplished something.

[wipfel]

I think that was Scalia's point.  In his dissent he wanted the people to decide this issue, and, instead, the court said, " No, WE'LL decide it for you since you decided wrongly."  

 

We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution.  We might have let the People decide.  But that the majority will not do.Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many.  But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.We owed both of them better.
I dissent.

[Mariner]

Even though I am a Christian I don't care if a gay couple gets married, I don't approve of it but it is not my marriage. What I would like to know however is are they going to provide protection to churches so they can not be sued when they refuse to marry same sex couples. Just because the government says it is o.k. it is still against are beliefs and should not be forced on us.

 

Karl

[JayC]

Need to get the state governments out of it as well....  there is no need for the government to be involved in marriage at all.

 

I was not surprised.  When it comes to the federal government, showing favortism (actually "punnishing" same-sex couples which is what DOMA was really about) is simply not going to pass Constitutional muster.

 

I think Scalia (sp?) is a very strict Constitutionalist and I think that is precisely why he came down the way he did on this issue.

 

Now...if we can just get the federal governmetn completely out of the marriage business we will have accomplished something.

 

[RobertNashville]

I think the danger to the church (all churcnes of any faith) is not DOMA being struck down but the federal government in general...I don't expect any help from them in protecting a religion's right to, for example, not marry homosexual couples etc...we've seen that with Obamacare and birth control.

 

The only hope for religions will be to fight such oppression in the courts citing the constitutionally protected right for people to be able to freely practice their religion...I don't hold out much hope for that, however.

 

That's part of my reason for saying that we need the government out of the whole "marriage" issue completely...no favortism...no special government benefitrs for being "married" not married be that taxes or health care insurance or anything else.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

DOMA another clinton era bad idea.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The reason behind DOMA was more political expediency. The federal government has no right to go there, even if I agreed

with the law. It's constitutionality is more important. Let the states deal with this, just like they should be allowed to do, but

the same should apply to things like abortion, and that means Roe v Wade should be struck down, also.

 

And if that ever happened, there should be a nullification of thousands of stupid laws. You probably know which I would

start with, first.

[leftyk82]

Yay! More people for Obamacare, yay!

[RobertNashville]

Yay! More people for Obamacare, yay!

How do you figure that?

 

Everyone is supposed to be taken care of now, either with their own private insurance (if they can find it) or Obamacare...married or not, homosexual or not has not impact on that.

[leftyk82]

Yay! More people for Obamacare, yay!

How do you figure that?

Everyone is supposed to be taken care of now, either with their own private insurance (if they can find it) or Obamacare...married or not, homosexual or not has not impact on that.

I just think this administration can use any headline for their benefit; especially when it's the outcome they hoped for.

[gun sane]

What the decision really does is stigmatize people who live their lives according to moral principle.  If you say you are opposed to gay marriage because of your faith or belief,  you now become a self-confessed homophobe.  It wasn't political ideology that was decided today, but the illegitimacy of perceived righteousness.

[Jonnin]

There is little need to fear that homo couples will force churches to perform the ceremony.   Simply add a few "choice" verses appropriate to homosexuality to the text and they will quickly decide that a justice of the peace may be a better option.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What the decision really does is stigmatize people who live their lives according to moral principle.  If you say you are opposed to gay marriage because of your faith or belief,  you now become a self-confessed homophobe.  It wasn't political ideology that was decided today, but the illegitimacy of perceived righteousness.

 

I don't quite get that, but am not disputing your right to think thataway, or claiming that you are "wrong".

 

For instance I think drug abuse is bad. I recommend that people avoid the practice, and I avoid interaction with junkies whenever possible. On the other hand, people can shoot heroin till they flop over dead for all I care, as long as they mind their own biz and leave me alone.

 

If heroin were legalized (fat chance), then I wouldn't beome a stigmatized person merely for continuing to disapprove the practice and continuing to avoid junkies whenever possible.

[RobertNashville]

What the decision really does is stigmatize people who live their lives according to moral principle.  If you say you are opposed to gay marriage because of your faith or belief,  you now become a self-confessed homophobe.  It wasn't political ideology that was decided today, but the illegitimacy of perceived righteousness.

Is hiding your morality behind a federal government proclamation a morally superior position?

 

I fail to see how DOMA has/had any impact on anyone’s belief or what others think of them…I’m pretty sure that if others believe you are a homophobe because your religion is opposed to same-sex marriage it thought so both before DOMA, while DOMA was in effect and will continue to right on into the future.

[Raoul]

What the decision really does is stigmatize people who live their lives according to moral principle.  If you say you are opposed to gay marriage because of your faith or belief,  you now become a self-confessed homophobe.  It wasn't political ideology that was decided today, but the illegitimacy of perceived righteousness.

 

Nice turn of phrase.

 

As for me, I say everyone should have the right to have a government sanctioned marriage to the one they love.

[RobertNashville]

Nice turn of phrase.

 

As for me, I say everyone should have the right to have a government sanctioned marriage to the one they love.

I'm curious; why do you think the government at any level of government, should be involved at all?

 

Frankly, who I marry, don't marry, live with, don't live with, love, don't love is not a roll that governmetn should be or needs to be involved in. I'm certainly in favor of hetrosexual marraige and belive it's the best overall structure for a successful society...but I don't see it as the proper roll of government to be involved in it.

Edited June 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[onemancoyote]

I'm glad DOMA is on the way out. Now if we can just get Tennessee to lift it's ban.

We need to go back to being a country of life, liberty, and the pursuit. And if your happiness hinges on denying someone else the right to be happy maybe you should reevaluate your life.

[gun sane]

Of course I believe in the power of choice.  I also acknowledge that some can't see beyond their own desire the eventual outcome of their decisions.  Why not let kids have as much candy as they want?  Why tell your teenager you want them home before midnight?  Liberty without restraint guided by wisdom is not victimless.  It affects many more people than you might realize.  So it is with a government which makes or decides laws based not upon the eventual consequences, but upon what will attract more votes.  Because the poor outnumber the rich, it is far more popular to spread the wealth around to achieve "fairness"  rather than reward individual achievement.  How much of your taxes are you willing to give to finance a drug rehab clinic for illegal aliens or an all-inclusive vacation resort for welfare recipients? A growing number of gays and lesbians are coming out of the closet, perhaps closely followed by polygamists, pedophiles and those strongly attracted to sheep.  You may think it's best to live and let live, but will you hold to that philosophy when the barbarians are storming your gates?

[Raoul]

I'm curious; why do you think the government at any level of government, should be involved at all?

 

Frankly, who I marry, don't marry, live with, don't live with, love, don't love is not a roll that governmetn should be or needs to be involved in. I'm certainly in favor of hetrosexual marraige and belive it's the best overall structure for a successful society...but I don't see it as the proper roll of government to be involced in it.

 

My point exactly. The whole concept of a marriage license is silly.

[Raoul]

Of course I believe in the power of choice.  I also acknowledge that some can't see beyond their own desire the eventual outcome of their decisions.  Why not let kids have as much candy as they want?  Why tell your teenager you want them home before midnight?  Liberty without restraint guided by wisdom is not victimless.  It affects many more people than you might realize.  So it is with a government which makes or decides laws based not upon the eventual consequences, but upon what will attract more votes.  Because the poor outnumber the rich, it is far more popular to spread the wealth around to achieve "fairness"  rather than reward individual achievement.  How much of your taxes are you willing to give to finance a drug rehab clinic for illegal aliens or an all-inclusive vacation resort for welfare recipients? A growing number of gays and lesbians are coming out of the closet, perhaps closely followed by polygamists, pedophiles and those strongly attracted to sheep.  You may think it's best to live and let live, but will you hold to that philosophy when the barbarians are storming your gates?

 

 

Whadda ya mean WHEN...

[Smith]

I'm glad DOMA is on the way out. Now if we can just get Tennessee to lift it's ban.

We need to go back to being a country of life, liberty, and the pursuit. And if your happiness hinges on denying someone else the right to be happy maybe you should reevaluate your life.

You mean go back to a time when we had a code of absolute moral ethics that established this country that gave us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?. The same ones we are currently dismantling that you applaud.? Talking about a circular feel good statement. ;)

 

You do realize that this ruling is establishing for the first time in the history of government or the history of man where same sex relationships were deemed "marriage". This is a brand new baby. Just saying.